Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down

Old 19th Feb 2020, 03:08
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by outnabout View Post
"operating on instruments, meaning the pilots were flying visually and would have lodged flight plans before takeoff"

Logansi - please tell me this is incorrectly quoted. If this is correct, then God help us all.

A tragic, tragic day for all those involved - aviators, friends and family, instructors who did last flight review, air traffic control, and emergency services who are attending the scene.
Sorry I was quoting the what multiple media outlets were saying CASA spokesperson said. Clearly they got the quote wrong.
logansi is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 03:19
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Outback Australia
Posts: 341
From the news report:

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) confirmed that one of the planes was a Piper-Seminole aircraft operated by flying school Moorabbin Aviation Services that had departed from Moorabbin.

The other was a Beechcraft Travel Air, operated privately out of Tyabb, on the Mornington Peninsula.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said they were operating on instruments, meaning the pilots were flying visually and would have lodged flight plans before takeoff.

“We don’t have any explanation of what happened. We can’t speculate on that,” Mr Gibson said.

Logansi - it's not a direct quote so it could be the reporter did not know what CASA were talking about and intepreted the CASA statement to suit the reporter.
outnabout is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 03:33
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Leisure coast
Posts: 6
If I'm reading this right. You have one plane descending on a roughly down wind leg, and the other plane climbing on a (roughly) crosswind departure. being in the same 3d space at the same time (I.e colliding).

What's the statistical likelihood of that. Add in they are both twins.

Or am I missing something here?

Ozferret
OzFerret is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 03:40
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 194
Now flying GA IFR A lot these days, I'm puzzled - if both IFR, and as ADSB is mandated and both with flight flans and (presumably) contact with ATC how were they not made aware of proximity? Am I missing something here?

My sincerest condolences to the pilots and passengers families.
NOtimTAMs is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 03:58
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In the doghouse
Posts: 494
If they were both IFR, and ATC did what is required, then they would have been given to each other as traffic. They are not separated in Class G however, and possibly/probably had coms with each other on the CTAF to arrange their own separation. What happened after that will hopefully become clear in an investigation.

Homesick-Angel is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 04:23
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Flight Radar 24 playback, JQF does appear until less than 1 or 2 minutes before impact
dogpilot is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 04:30
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,675
5nm and 4,000 ft is beyond the CTAF really. Both would have / should have been on the same area frequency. The flight trace of VH-AEM clearly shows that is was being vectored. The Seminole was flying to Essendon. The area frequency is available on the ground. One would presume it requested airways clearance in a taxy call.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 04:37
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by NOtimTAMs View Post
Now flying GA IFR A lot these days, I'm puzzled - if both IFR, and as ADSB is mandated and both with flight flans and (presumably) contact with ATC how were they not made aware of proximity? Am I missing something here?

My sincerest condolences to the pilots and passengers families.
Obviously the exact details of what each aircraft was doing at the time are pretty vague. However I will assume it was some kind of approach training happening at the aerodrome. This being the case, it would be almost certain that ATC would have given both aircraft a traffic statement. Then it is on the pilots to separate with each other. However, if controllers observe both aircraft getting in close proximity to each other they will issue a safety alert. There are several possible failure points in this though.

First, it would be assuming either of the aircraft were even still monitoring centre. It is not uncommon for air work aircraft to stop monitoring until their ops normal time. Then they would have to still be in surveillance. I donít know what the ADSB coverage at YMNG is like, but websites like FR24 give a false indication of the ADSB coverage. They have other ground stations etc that donít feed into the ATC system. If not on ADSB, then the controller wouldnít know they were at risk of a collision. Even if they were on surveillance then it still can be missed. Air work aircraft regularly get very close, so that on its own isnít uncommon. Additionally due to system limitations itís unlikely the STCA would be available. So unless the controller was watching them very closely, it could be missed. Keep in mind, they quite possibly had a lot of other stuff happening in other parts of the airspace.
OCTA Aus is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 04:42
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,121
Wouldn't both have been fitted with ADS-B if IFR?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 04:54
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
5nm and 4,000 ft is beyond the CTAF really. Both would have / should have been on the same area frequency. The flight trace of VH-AEM clearly shows that is was being vectored. The Seminole was flying to Essendon. The area frequency is available on the ground. One would presume it requested airways clearance in a taxy call.
How do you come to the conclusion AEM was being vectored? To me it looks like itís tracking to one of the northern RNAV IAFs on its own nav. Why would it request an airways clearance on taxy? The base of class E isnít until 8500ft so it is unlikely to need an airways clearance on taxy
OCTA Aus is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 04:57
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In the doghouse
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
5nm and 4,000 ft is beyond the CTAF really. Both would have / should have been on the same area frequency. The flight trace of VH-AEM clearly shows that is was being vectored. The Seminole was flying to Essendon. The area frequency is available on the ground. One would presume it requested airways clearance in a taxy call.

Yes to being on the same frequency - 122.4 from memory and probably on CTAF as well. Up to them to arrange separation and up to centre to give updates and extra IFR traffic.

No clearance required in class G - MELB CTA boundary at (or near) LACEY for lighties going into EN and the melb CTA

AEM might have requested traffic for a new track or heading, but wouldnít have been vectored by ATC at that point as itís not CTA, theyíd just be given traffic (if it was identified at that point).

I often think of Ďfate is the hunterí in these types of accidents - so so unlucky to strike mid air. Very sad.


Homesick-Angel is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 05:03
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 28
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
The flight trace of VH-AEM clearly shows that is was being vectored.
Wow, had no idea that ATC could do that OCTA. Learn something new every day, eh.
junior.VH-LFA is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 05:05
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 28
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Wouldn't both have been fitted with ADS-B if IFR?
ADS-B out, yes.
junior.VH-LFA is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 05:07
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,675
AEM was not on its flightplan route. It had clearly been vectored around the ML CTA. My guess is that they had descended to 4,000 ft for the 3900 ft VOR entry. I would assume they asked for descent on first contact with 122.4 after being handed over from 135.7. Where else do you go for a VOR approach? From Tyabb, LTV is closer for an RNAV approach.

JQF had filed in IFR plan to Essendon, via Lacey Colds Monty. It needed a clearance for Essendon. Normal practice would be to ask for traffic and airways clearance on the ground as part of the taxy call. ERSA lists 122.4 as having reception on the ground.



Old Akro is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 05:13
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,675
My guess is that AEM was being vectored until it was handed over from 135.7 to 122.4 maybe 5-10 min prior at which point I would presume they were give the "resume own navigation" call.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 05:17
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
It may well have been vectored around the ML CTR, however it had been in its own nav for about 40NM after the vectoring. I guarantee ATC will not vector an aircraft for 40NM. They were on their own nav and OCTA when the collision happened. They may well have been for the VOR, however it was OCTA.

Calling for clearance on the ground may well be your standard procedure, however it would be completely unnecessary given you donít enter CTA until a significant time after takeoff and I doubt a an airways clearance would be given off the ground.
OCTA Aus is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 05:22
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
JQF had filed in IFR plan to Essendon, via Lacey Colds Monty. It needed a clearance for Essendon. Normal practice would be to ask for traffic and airways clearance on the ground as part of the taxy call. ERSA lists 122.4 as having reception on the ground.
They could have requested clearance on the ground, but not necessary. Just as easy to request when approaching a waypoint. I agree that the lack of VOR makes Mangalore one of few training destinations (was for me).
Stickshift3000 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 07:25
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,780
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
AEM was not on its flightplan route. It had clearly been vectored around the ML CTA. My guess is that they had descended to 4,000 ft for the 3900 ft VOR entry. I would assume they asked for descent on first contact with 122.4 after being handed over from 135.7. Where else do you go for a VOR approach? From Tyabb, LTV is closer for an RNAV approach.

JQF had filed in IFR plan to Essendon, via Lacey Colds Monty. It needed a clearance for Essendon. Normal practice would be to ask for traffic and airways clearance on the ground as part of the taxy call. ERSA lists 122.4 as having reception on the ground.

I suggest you read the posts to you, they are correct you are not.
ACMS is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 07:46
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by ZAZ View Post
but in this case looking at the fr24 replays they got within 1000 feet and ten minutes so traffic alert shoukd have occured, tapes will tell the story in the crash comic.
I get what you mean and itís not incorrect, but a terminology issue. Because they are departing/arriving at the same aerodrome within 10 mins of each other they should receive a traffic statement. A traffic alert would be something given when aircraft will operate in unsafe proximity and would be more along the lines of ďsafety alert, traffic isĒ and most controllers would give a suggested resolution as well. For reference the traffic parameters are dep/arr within 10 mins for the same aerodrome, 15NM lateral and within 1000ft of each other vertically (2000ft where the pressure level information hasnít been verified)
OCTA Aus is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 07:56
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,675
Originally Posted by ACMS View Post
I suggest you read the posts to you, they are correct you are not.
Which bit?
AEM was not on its flightplanned route - correct. Look at Flight Aware. It looks like ATC did its normal trick of routing IFR traffic around Melbourne above the Visual Route. Typically they will keep you on vectors until the a/c exits the control step then do the "resume own navigation" trick.
AEM descended from 6000 ft about co-incident with the 145.7 / 122.4 boundary. How many times have you (as an IFR pilot?) have requested a descent only to have the response to ask the next controller? My guess is that traffic for descent was requested and responded on the same frequency as JQM. We'll soon know.
AEM descended to 4,000 ft which would be the rational selection for a direct entry to the VOR approach. Why would you go 20nm further and deal with more traffic to do an RNAV at MNG compared with YLTV??

JQM had an IFR plan filed for YMEN - look at flight aware - its there. Lacey / Colds / Monty is the setup for the RWY 27 RNAV or ILS. They are IFR waypoints. That points to an IFR plan.
I'm suggesting that a call on area frequency requesting IFR traffic and requesting an airways clearance for an instrument approach to Essendon less than 20 min flying time away would be common practice. Are you really suggesting that its not prudent?? With an Instructor onboard??? With area frequency available on the ground?? When you are taking off expecting IMC???

Old Akro is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.